Why do people keep referring to Ron Paul as a Libertarian? The guy wouldn’t recognize Libertarianism if it stared him in the face:
Stuck in Washington as Congress faces votes on continued funding of American military action in Libya, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, making his third bid for the White House, spoke via Skype to pro-life activists convening in Jacksonville.
“I talk a lot about right-to-life,” said Paul, who called it “the most important issue of our age.”
As Jeffe Fecke at the link I provided above says:
Any serious attempt abortion would require draconian government action that would seriously endanger liberty for women, and even then, it would probably fail. It would require a massive outlay of cash and capital, of police and state resources. It would require spot inspections of health care facilities, and investigation of miscarriages. It would be about as anti-freedom an act as one could reasonably expect.
If anybody has forgotten, Ayn Rand was a passionate champion of abortion rights and believed that they are indispensable for a society even to begin to call itself free.
Ron Paul is nothing but a religious fanatic who is upset at the separation of church and state as it is established by the Constitution of the United States:
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”
This is Ron Paul speaking, in case you didn’t know. He’s nothing but yet another Palin, Pawlenty, Perry, Bachmann, and Bush: a crazed fundamentalist who’s using quasi-Libertarian vocabulary from time to time in order to dupe the naive into following him.